Bob Whitmire wrote:
> Not too bad. Lousy conditions, all things considered. Looks like it could be
> a contender.
>
The 'lousy' light conditions were intentional. I figured one of the
primary things I needed to know was what kind of IQ, esp. dynamic range,
it has at base ISO. What better test than bright, low sun through trees.
One answer is the processed RAW images.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=BlakeHouse/G11FirstDay>
The main answers are:
- In common with other small sensor cameras, it clips fairly easily on
highlights, although I would guess less so than most others.
- Compared to the G9/A650, it holds lots more low noise shadow detail.
The G9/A650 isn't bad, but there's definite noise in the RAW files at
ISO 80. On the G11, none is apparent at first look, and what there is,
is hiding way down deep. I didn't use NR on these images.
- So the technique for capturing maximum tonal range on high dynamic
range subjects is definitely to shoot to the right, to hold the
highlights. I know you will see at least -1 1/3 EV shots in the gallery.
-2/3 EV will probably still be my default, but the shadows are good
enough to make greater than -1 EV useful for some subjects.
- ACR is still the overall ruler for Canon RAW files. I tried Canon's
DPP converter, using it much more than I ever have before, hoping it
would do the job. It's a pretty good piece of software, especially
considering that it comes for no extra cost with all RAW capable Canon
cameras, and with endless free updates. It's fast, decent interface,
etc, and creates good conversions of normal files. For the heavy lifting
I needed here, though, it's just not up to ACR.
I'm rather pleased with many of the images. Some are undoubtedly
overdone or not really images worth the effort in normal circumstances.
But here, I'm still testing the limits of dynamic range. There's also a
learning curve. G11 RAW images are quite different than G9/A650 or 5D
images, and require different technique to get the best out of them.
There are two versions of the first image. Most of the subject was in
shade and a shaft of direct sun blew out one corner. That area was dead
meat in DPP. ACR & PS were able to recover enough essentially monochrome
detail that Match Color could recreate the color.
0045 also has two versions. I like the looks one with darker shadows
better, but was impressed with the amount of shadow detail available.
Next up - sigh - higher ISOs. Aux lens mounting tube due on the doorstep
tomorrow.
And a correction/clarification. I said the old Oly hot shoe covers were
fine. Well, sure, if you don't want to use flash. Mounting a flash or
simple cover pushes a micro switch, which completely disables the flash,
even the icons and the button. If they had their little springy arm on
the other side, it would be easy to do a little Dremel work to adapt
one. As it is, I broke down and ordered one that doesn't disable the flash.
A Testy Moose
> --Bob Whitmire
>
> On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:21 AM, Moose wrote:
>
>> Rather than take a bunch of silly shots around house and yard, I convinced
>> my lazy self to get out and take my first real shots in a pretty place with
>> a lot of variety in subjects and light.
>>
>> VERY much unlike myself, I've allowed images to go on the web with no real
>> processing. Here's a sampling just as they come, JPEGs right out of the
>> camera, run through PTLens as a batch, batch resized by FastStone
>> and tossed up on the web. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/G11/
>>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|